Patent-pool et transfert des bio/technologies: le cas des cellules souches

References

1.Beck, S. (1998) « Do you have a licence ?: product licence for PCR in research application. The scientist. 12 n°21.

2.Beeney, G.R. (2002). Pro-competitive aspects of intellectual property pools: a proposal for safe harbor provisions (A submission to the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission Joint Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy)

3.Bergman K. & Graff G.*D. (2007) Collaborative IP management for stem cell research and development. CIP: Goteborg, Sweden, and PIPRA: Davis, CA, USA.

4.Bonet, G. (1996) "le nouveau reglement d'exemption par categorie d'accords de transfert de technologie: RDT eur 1996, p 305

5.Bonet, G. (25 mars 2005) « droit national de marque et application du Traite de Rome - Libre concurrence - Libre circulation des marchandises, JClass Marque ed.2006, Fasc. 7600.

6.Bonet G.: (2004) « le reglement (CE) n° 772/2004 de la Commission du 27 avril 2004 concernant l'application de Particle 81 §3 du Traite a des categories d'accords de transfert de technologie, JOCE L. 123/11, 27 avril 2004. ; RDT eur 2004, Chron. de propriete intellectuel. p 716 et s.

7.California Council on Science and Technology [CCST] Intellectual Property Study Group (2006) Policy framework for intellectual property derived from State funded research: final report to the California legislature, governor of the state of California. Riverside (California).

8.Chajmowicz M et A. Simon (2004). « Les brevets de cellules souches : quand l'ethique et la politique s'en melent » Biofutur n° 247 p72-74.

9.Eastmond Robert W., Robert A. Schwartzman et Ted J. Ebersole (2006) Stem Cell: the patent landscape. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal vol 18 n° 1.

10.Ebersole TJ, Edmond RW, Schwartzman RA (2005) Stem cells--Patent pools to the rescue? Washington (D. C.): Sterne Kessler Goldstein and Fox. Diponible a l'adresse: http://www.skgf.com/media/news/news.176.PDF. visit& le 27/08/07.

11.Essential inventions. 2005. Essential Patent pool for AIDS. Background information. Washington D.C. Disponible sur le site : www.essentialinventions.org, visite le 27/08/07

12.Federal Trade Commission (2003). To promote innovation: the proper balance of competition and patent law and policy. Consultable ligne a l'adresse: http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect, visite le 28/08/07

13.Fergusson (2001) "Licensing and distribution of research tools: National Institut of Health perspective" J. Clin. Pharmacol. 41: 107S-117S

14.Fore, J., I.R. Wiechers et R. Cook Deegans (2006). The effetcs of business practices, licensing, and intellectual property on development and dissemination of the polymerase chain reaction: case study. Journal of biomedical discovery and collaboration. p1-6.

15.Galloux J.C. et Gutman, D. (2004) « la protection des inventions biotechnologiques selon la loi du 6 wilt 2004: du genie genetique a la teratogenie juridique ». Propriete industrielle. Oct 2004. n ⁰13. p 871-881.

16.Galloux J.C. et Azema J. (2006) Droit de la propriete industrielle. Précis Dalloz.

17.Galloux, J.C. (2005) « Le reglement 772/2004/CE de la Commission du 27 avril 2004 concemant l'application de Particle 81§3 du Traite a des categories d'accords de transfert de technologie » Propriete Intellectuelle n° 14 p 4-14.

18.Galloux J.C. (2007). « Cellules souches humaines et brevetabilite » Propriete industrielle du Juill 2007. n°24. p 300-308.

19.Gilbert. J. "Antitrust for patent pools: a century of policy evolution". Stanford Technology Law Review, 2004.

20.Golstein J.A. (2001). Patenting the tools of drug discovery. Drug discovery World summer p9-18.

21.Goozner M. Innovation in biomedicine: Can stem cell research lead the way to affordability? PLoS Med. 2006.

22.Hagedoorn, J. et Schakenraad, J. (1990): Interfirm partnerships and cooperative strategie in core technologies. In Freeman, C. et Soete, L. (Eds.), New explorations in the economics of thechnical change, Londres: Pinter Publishers, pp. 3-37.

23.Heller M.A. and R.S. Eisenberg, Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research, Science 280 (1998), pp. 698-701.

24.Heller M.A., The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to markets, Harv. Law Rev. 111 (1998), pp. 621-688.

25.Homiller, D. P. (2006) "Patent Misuse in Patent Pool Licensing, from National Harrow to the Nine No-No's to Not Likely." Patents and Technology Duke L. and Tech. Review 7, disponible sur le site: www.law.duke.edu. Visite le 27/08/07.

26.Janis, M. (2005) Aggregation and Dissemination Issues in Patent Pools. In Collison, W. "Issues in Competition Law and Policy".

27.Krattiger A., Kovalski S., Eiss R. Et Taubman A. (2006). Intellectual management strategies to accelerate the developpement and acces of vaccines and diagostics: case studies on ademic Influenza, Malaria and SARS. Innovation Strategy Today 2(2):67-122.

28.Kovar R. (2005). Jurisclasseur. Fasc. 4880: accords de transfert de technologie. Reglement n° 772/2004 de la Commission du 27 avril 2004.

29.Leveque F. (2007). La normalisation et le droit de la concurrence face au hold-up. Revue LAMY de la concurrence. Juill-Sept 2007. p170-175.

30.Leveque F. et Y. Meniere, 2003. « Economie de la propriete industrielle » Ed. la decouverte, coll. Repêres. 122 p.

31.Lerner, J., Strojwas, M. & Tirole, J. (2003). The Structure and Performance of Patent Pools. Empirical Evidence. Working paper Harvard University/NBER/ University of Toulouse/ Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

32.Loring J. and Campbell C. " Intellectual Property and human embryonic stem cell research" (2006) Science vol. 311 n° 5768, p1716-1717.

33.Megregian S. Et H.Bignall. (2007) "Patent pools, a comparaison of the US and the EU standpoints" Competition law Insight du 8 mai 2007. p11-12.

34.Merges Robert P., Institutions For Intellectual Property Transactions: The Case for Patent Pools (August 1999). disponible sur le site:

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bc1t/pubs/merges/pools.pdf. Visite le 27/08/07.

35.Merz J.F. et al., Diagnostic testing fails the test, Nature 415 (2002), pp. 577-579.

36.MINEFI, (2006) Rapport de la Commission sur l'economie de l'immateriel : « reinventer notre modêle de croissance », Bercy, 4 decembre 2006.

37.MINEFI, Etude (2006) "technologie cies 2010". Novembre 2006. Disponible a l'adresse : http://www. Industrie.gouv.fr/liste-index/technocles2010.html, visite le 28/08/07.

38.Mireles M.S. (2004) An examination of patents, licensing, research tools and the tragedy of the anticommons in biotechnology innovation. University of Michigan. Journal of law reform 38.

39.National Institut of Health (1995) "revised utility examination guidelines"

40.National Institut of Health (1999) "Principles and guidelines for recepient of NIH research grants and contracts on obtaining and disseminating biomediacal research ressources: final notice. 64 Federal Register 7209 (23 decembre 99). http://www.nih.gov/news/researchtools/index.htm).

41.0tt M.O. (2007) « Recherche sur les cellules souches embryonnaires humaines : entre enjeux scientifiques et economiques, quel future pour une politique globale » Biofutur N°273. p20-25.

42.Pei Silvia (2007) "le cas des brevets WARF" Biofuture N°273. p20-25. 43.Rauber C. San Francisco Business Times 21 Nov. 1997. $200 M patent runs out.

44.Saha Krishanu, Gregory Graff, and David Winickoff, "Enabling Stem Cell Research and Development" (27 avril 2007). Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. JSP/Center for the Study of Law and Society Faculty Working Papers. Paper 48

45.Scotchmer, S. (1991): Standing on the schoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law. J. Economics Perspectives n°5. p 29-41.

46.Serafino David « Survey of Patent Pools Demonstrates Variety of Purposes and Management Structures » Knowledge Ecology InternationalResearch Note 2007:6 du 4 June 2007 disponible a l'adresse : http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=69.

47.Seide R., Lecointe, M., and Granovsky, A. (2001) Patent Pooling in the Biotechnology Industry. Licensing Journal, 27,28-29

48.Shapiro, C. (2001) Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools and standard setting. In Innovation Policy and the Economy (Vol. I) (Jaffe, E. et al., eds), pp. 119-150, MIT Press.

49.Simon A. (2007). « Brevets et cellules souches embryonnaires humaines : le denouement approche » Biofutur. N° 273. p26-28.

50.Teldmas M. Colaianni A. et Liu K. 2005. Commercializing Cohen-Boyer 1980-1997. Working paper.

51.Tirole Jean, Henry Claude, Trommetter Michel, Tubiana Laurence, Caillaud Bernard. Conseil d'analyse economique. « Propriete intellectuelle » Paris. La Documentation francaise (2003). Les Rapports du Conseil d'analyse economique, n° 41.

52.UK Stem Cell Initiative (2005) Report and recommendations. London: UK Department ofHealth. Disonible sur le site: http:fwww.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/uksci/ukscireportnov05.pdf. Visite le 27/08/07

53.USPTO, Patent Pools: A Solution to the Problem of Access in Biotechnology Patents? (2000) en ligne a l'adresse http:// www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/patentpool.pdf, visit& le 27 Aotit 2007.

54.USPTO Communiqué de presse du 19 Janv 2001: "USPTO issues white paper on patent pooling" http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/01-06.htm, visit& le 27 Aotit 2007.

55.USPTO (1995) "new utility examination guidelines"

56.USPTO (2001) "revised utility examination guidelines" docket n° 991027289-0263-02, Fed Reg. Vol 66, n°4, du 5 janv. 2001. p 1092.

57.USPTO (1999) "Revised interim utility guidelines training materials" Fed Reg. Vol 64, du 21 dec.1999.

58.Van Zimmeren E., Verbeure B., Malthus G. & Van Overwalle G., (2006) 'A Clearinghouse for Diagnostic Testing: the Solution to Ensure Access to and Use of Patented Genetic Inventions?', Bulletin of the World Health Organization 352-359

59.Wadman M. (2005). Licensing fees slow advance of stem cells. Nature. E-pub 18 May 2005 435:272-273. Disponible en ligne: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/pf/435272a_pfhtml. Consulte le 24 wilt 2007.

60.Walsh, J., Arora, A., Cohen W. (2003) Effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation. In Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy. (Cohen, W.M. and Merrill, S.A., eds), pp. 285-240, National Academic Press.

Arrets:

Europeens :

Consten et Grundig c. Commission , (1966) CJCE 16 juill. 1966. Aff conjointes 56 et 58/64 Centrafarm B.V. c/ Sterling drug Inc. (1974), CJCE 31 oct. 1974. Aff. 15/74

RTE et ITP vs Commission (1995) Aff conjointes C-241/91 et C-242/91 P, CJCE, 6 avril 1995. Tierce Labroke vs Commission (1997) Aff. T-504/93, TPICE du 12 juin 1997.

Windsurfing International, CJCE (1986) Aff. 193/83, 25 fevr. 1986, Rec. CJCE 1986, p. 611 IMS Health vs NDC (2005), Aff. C-418/01, CJCE du 29 avril 2005.

Americains :

Diamond v. Chakrabarty , 447 U.S. 303 (1980)

Stergios Delimitis c/ Henninger Brau AG (CJCE, 28 fevr. 1991), aff. C-234/89, Rec. CJCE 1991, I, p. 935

Regents of the university of California vs Eli Lilly & Co. 119 F. 3d. 1559 (Fed. Circ. 1997) Bayer vs Housey Pharmaceuticals .Inc., Fed Cir. N° 02-1598, 08/22/03

Enzo-Biochem vs. Gen-Probe, 285 F. 3d. 1013 (Fed. Circ. 2002)

Madey vs Duke University 307 F.3d 1351 (N° 01-1567) Fed. Circ. 2002

Merck KGaA vs Integra Lifescience (331 F.3d 860 N° 03-1237, 545, USC 2005) Re Fisher n° 04-1465 du 7 septembre 2005 (421 F. 3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005)